Mr. Sifford worked full-time as a truck driver, during the
marriage, and Mrs. Sifford worked part-time, earning approximately $600.00 per
month. She testified at the Workers’ Compensation Commission hearing that she
was dependent on her husband’s income. In January 2008, due to marital
difficulties, the Siffords moved into separate bedrooms within their marital
home.
On May 5, 2008, the Siffords entered into a written
settlement agreement, which stated their intent to resolve their respective
rights and duties as to custody in support of the minor child, as well as
support for each other. Mrs. Sifford testified that Mr. Sifford paid the
following expenses: house payment, health insurance, homeowner’s insurance,
life insurance, taxes, utilities, cable bill, and cell phone bill. Mr.
Sifford testified that she never reimbursed her husband for any of those
payments.
At the time she executed the agreement, Mrs. Sifford
testified she could not survive on the $600.00 per month that she earned
from her part-time employment. On September 15, 2008, Mrs. Sifford began
working 35 hours per week earning $11,000.00 per year. Mr. Sifford died on
September 24, 2008 in a work-related accident.
Mrs. Sifford’s claim for death benefits was denied by
the deputy commissioner. The commissioner found that there was no evidence
that Mr. Sifford paid any additional money to his wife or that her “station
in life” required extra money from him. The commissioner found that the
couple reached their settlement agreement for the benefit of their minor
child, not for the benefit of Mrs. Sifford. Moreover, Mrs. Sifford obtained
a better job; although, she was not earning what her husband earned, but
that was not something to be considered.
Mrs. Sifford argued that she was entitled to death
benefits under Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-512, because she was “actually
dependent” upon her husband at the time of his death, pursuant to Va. Code
Ann. § 65.2-515. The sole issue before the Court of Appeals of Virginia then
was whether Mrs. Sifford was “actually dependent” on Mr. Sifford.
Under Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-512(A)(1), if death results
from an accident covered by workers’ compensation, the decedent’s employer
must pay death benefits “to those persons presumed to be wholly dependent
upon the deceased employee as set forth in sub-division (A)(1), (A)(2), and
(A)(3) and Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-515.” Under Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-515(A)(1),
a wife is conclusively presumed to be dependent “upon a husband whom she had
not voluntarily deserted or abandoned at the time of the accident or with
whom she lived at the time of his accident, if she is then actually
dependent upon him.” To be “actually dependent” under this section, the wife
“need only establish partial dependency.” However, she must prove that her
husband “contributed with some degree of regularity, and such contributions
must have been relied upon by the claimant for reasonable necessaries
consistent with . . . her station in life.”
Virginia case law defines dependency under what is now
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-515 as meaning that, “the claimant looked to and relied
on the contributions of the employee, ‘“in whole or in part, as means of
support and maintenance in accordance with his or her social position and
accustomed mode of life.”’” It is clear from Virginia case law that one need
not be destitute or wholly dependent on the decedent to be “actually
dependent.”
The effect of the Siffords’ separation agreement was to
provide regular support for Mrs. Sifford, as well as to address the benefits
of their minor child. The uncontroverted evidence supported Mrs. Sifford’s
claim for death benefits. She relied upon her husband to maintain her
accustomed standard of living. She lived in the marital home rent-free. Mr.
Sifford paid all household expenses, including the mortgage, utilities, and
cable bill. He also paid all taxes. Mr. Sifford carried health, dental, and
optometric insurance on both Mrs. Sifford and the children. Mr. Sifford also
paid for the insurance on Mrs. Sifford’s car and paid her cell phone bills.
Mrs. Sifford did not and was not expected to reimburse Mr. Sifford for any
of these expenditures. The parties commingled their earnings into a joint
checking account. Finally, Mrs. Sifford testified she could not survive on
her part-time earnings. This overwhelming, uncontroverted evidence clearly
demonstrated that Mrs. Sifford relied on Mr. Sifford for her reasonable
necessaries.
Top
